[ros-dev] Pissoff hotlix

Mon Jun 27 10:37:04 CEST 2005

Why do you consider an altered copyright notice appropriate?

Brandon

Quandary wrote:

>On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 05:22:18AM -0700,
>magnus at itkonsult-olsen.com wrote:
>  
>
>>I meaing when we are printing out a copyright note
>>and that copyright note must be intact or the
>>copyright string. they are not allown to change it.
>>    
>>
>
>The license does not say this.
>
>  
>
>>see paragraph 2.c and reactos is interactiv.
>>    
>>
>
>2.c says that an *appropriate* copyright notice must
>be displayed. It does not define what appropriate
>means. It does *not* say, anywhere, that the copyright
>notice cannot be modified.
>
>  
>
>>and you for not remove or modify any copyright under
>>runtime.
>>    
>>
>
>I'm sorry, but your logic is patently false. The
>license in no way states that you cannot alter the
>copyright notice. It states only that you *must show
>an appropriate notice*. That means showing no notice
>would be wrong, but showing an altered notice is not
>(in and of itself) wrong.
>
>This could be wrong under copyright law, but the
>license does not in any way forbid it.
>
>  
>
>>I piss off for hotlix have change the runtime
>>copyright notes.
>>    
>>
>
>And I can understand your frustration; I think it's
>completely justified and warranted.
>
>  
>
>>sublicen some dll are wines and are under lgpl
>>therefor thuese this licen become a sublicen to
>>reactos.
>>    
>>
>
>Not true. LGPL is a DUAL license (both GPL and LGPL).
>See section 3 of the LGPL. When taking an LGPL library
>and using it as GPL, it is not a sub-license -- it is
>a separate license that you are allowed to use *in
>stead of* the LGPL.
>
>Someone taking your GPL source code and using it in
>a separate project, also released under the GPL, is
>not sub-licensing your code either. The code is
>available to that project's end-users under your
>license -- you license your code directly to
>HostiliX's (or anyone else's) end-users as GPL code.
>There is no sub-license involved, period.
>
>  
>
>>and gpl say any sublicen part of source code. the
>>sublicen for not be chaning. that meaning lgpl can
>>not become gpl
>>    
>>
>
>Yes it can. See section 3 of the LGPL.
>
>  
>
>>for we are realing wine code back as
>>lgpl.
>>    
>>
>
>Here's how it works. You bring in LGPL code. You
>modify the LGPL code. It's all still LGPL. You
>release the LGPL code back to Wine, everything is
>fine. You go to release it with your GPL code and,
>oops, incompatibility with the GPL! At that point, you
>invoke the second license (LGPL section 3) and treat
>the code as GPL. Then boom, everything works out fine.
>
>There is no sub-licensing. There is dual licensing,
>and that's not the same thing.
>
>  
>
>>therefor can they not take thuse dll or other
>>part of source in ros comes under diffent licen and
>>change it. for the main licen forbit it.
>>
>>see paragraph 4
>>    
>>
>
>But they aren't changing the license; they are using
>the GPL. I'll say it again: *no sub-licensing
>happens*.
>
>To prove your points, you need to do one of the
>following:
>
> * Name/show the non-GPL license they are using
> 
> * Show where a copyright notice used to print, and
>   now does not print *at all*.
>
>
>Double sigh.
>
>-- Travis
>
>  
>
>>Quoting Quandary <ai2097 at yahoo.com>:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 02:24:04AM -0700,
>>>magnus at itkonsult-olsen.com wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Hi
>>>>
>>>>I still alot pissoff hotlix they are still
>>>>breaking gpl
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I also don't particularly like what they are doing
>>>but I don't think that they are breaking the GPL.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>see GPL Licen paragraph 2.c
>>>>If the modified program normally reads commands
>>>>interactively when run, you must cause it, when
>>>>started running for such interactive use in the
>>>>most ordinary way, to print or display an
>>>>announcement
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>(emphasis)
>>>      
>>>
>>>>including an appropriate copyright notice and a
>>>>notice that there is no warranty (or else,
>>>>saying that you provide a warranty) and that
>>>>users may redistribute the program under these
>>>>conditions, and telling the user how to view a
>>>>copy of this License.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>(/emphasis)
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>(Exception: if the Program itself is interactive
>>>>but does not normally print such an
>>>>announcement, your work based on the Program is
>>>>not required to print an announcement.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hotlix have replace there copyright note on
>>>>every dll and exe files at run time. ReactOS are
>>>>interactive when it start and therefore are you
>>>>not allown to change the copyright note.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Sorry, but you're making a logical jump. The
>>>license above says that the modified program must
>>>display an *appropriate* copyright notice -- it
>>>does not say that the notice can't be changed.
>>>Your definition of appropriate (i.e., saying the
>>>original dev's name) may not be the legal
>>>definition (e.g., the most significant
>>>contributor, the latest contributor, the second
>>>developer's third-neice-twice-removed's
>>>boyfriend's dog, or whatever). So, from the
>>>      
>>>
>checklist:
>  
>
>>> 1. Do they print a copyright notice that is
>>>    appropriate?
>>> 2. Do they print that the program is GPL-
>>>    licensed?
>>> 3. Do they print how to view the license terms?
>>>
>>>They appear to comply (or can easily comply with)
>>>2 and 3. Unless you have a lawyer, though, 1 is
>>>gray.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>When you take
>>>>view propites of a dll / exe / sys / .. we are
>>>>showing our copyright. therefor are you not
>>>>allown to change this copyright note.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>(see above -- same error)
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>and they are breaking paragraph
>>>>4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or
>>>>distribute the Program except as expressly
>>>>provided under this License. Any attempt
>>>>otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or
>>>>distribute the Program is void, and will
>>>>automatically terminate your rights under this
>>>>License. However, parties who have received
>>>>copies, or rights, from you under this License
>>>>will not have their licenses terminated so long
>>>>as such parties remain in full compliance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They are not allown to change any licen from us.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Please clarify. According to them, they are using
>>>the GPL license -- same as us. I don't see how
>>>they are changing the licensing.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>for we using sublicen wine dll are lgpl and our
>>>>own code are gpl thefor should wine dll see as a
>>>>sublicen.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I don't really understand what you're trying to
>>>say here. However, note that the LGPL allows you
>>>to "upgrade" to the GPL license (it's effectively
>>>a dual license). The LGPL states:
>>>
>>>3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary
>>>GNU General Public License instead of this License
>>>to a given copy of the Library.  To do this, you
>>>must alter all the notices that refer to this
>>>License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU
>>>General Public License, version 2, instead of to
>>>this License.  (If a newer version than version 2
>>>of the ordinary GNU General Public License has
>>>appeared, then you can specify that version
>>>instead if you wish.)  Do not make any other
>>>change in these notices.
>>>
>>>Thus, there is no sublicensing going on -- it's
>>>all one license (GPL).
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I have not check see if they are still breaking
>>>>more paragraph in gpl. And I start thinking to
>>>>we or I should send a email say at they have
>>>>break gpl and they are not longer right to use
>>>>our code or my.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>As irate as you may be, nothing that you've
>>>brought up thus far looks to be an infraction of
>>>the GPL (although they could *potentially* be
>>>breaking some copyright law or other, e.g. by
>>>adding their copyright notices and removing
>>>existing ones, or by failing to cite sources of
>>>patches).
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I need get this out from my head and hart. I am
>>>>alot pissoff on holtix guys. The taking our
>>>>patch and put into there source there. without
>>>>telling how have wrote the code.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I agree that that's wrong and unfair. People
>>>deserve credit and recognition for the work that
>>>they do.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>That mean they are breaking some copyright laws.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>If you can find the particular law that applies,
>>>go for it. I'm not an international lawyer myself,
>>>so I don't know what laws even apply to them --
>>>let alone if they're breaking those laws.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>You can not take other source code and put into
>>>>another there without writen permitontion
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>You contributed your code under the terms of the
>>>GPL. That is your "written permission," sorry to
>>>say -- by your own choice of license, the source
>>>code is available to be copied, reworked, and re-
>>>released by anyone else. I'll also reiterate that
>>>they do seem to be in compliance (though only by
>>>words and not in spirit).
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>or tell where the code comes from. if you look
>>>>at there source there you will think they have
>>>>wrote the patch code. But it is some devloper at
>>>>us that have write the patch for reactos.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Sigh.
>>>
>>>-- Travis
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
>http://mail.yahoo.com 
>_______________________________________________
>Ros-dev mailing list
>Ros-dev at reactos.com
>http://reactos.com:8080/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>  
>